Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

[Synoptic-L] Re: Another attempt at explanation

Expand Messages
  • gentdave2
    John, Both the example below, and my previous one were correct, even though they are differant examples. My goal was for you to understand the experimental
    Message 1 of 36 , May 1, 2002
      John,

      Both the example below, and my previous one were correct, even though
      they are differant examples.

      My goal was for you to understand the experimental design. Is this
      your goal as well? Or are you just playing at not understanding in
      order to get an explination that satisfies your specific set of
      criteria?

      Do you now understand the design?
      If you do understand the intent, but object to the wording, why not
      express it in your own words? That would be contructive. It seems to
      be clear to most here, but I'd be open to suggestions for clearer
      terms.

      Dave Gentile
      Riverside, Illinois


      --- In synoptic-l@y..., John Lupia <jlupia2@y...> wrote:
      > Jeffrey Glen Jackson wrote:
      > > Take the following to sentences:
      > > (a) The fox jumps over the dog.
      > > (b) The dog jumps over the fox.
      > >
      > > The word "dog" appears in both sentences. This is a
      > > generic
      > > use of the word "dog". However there are two
      > > specific
      > > instances of the word dog here. Instance 1 occurs
      > > in (b),
      > > but not (a), and instance 2 occurs in (a), but not
      > > (b). In
      > > contrast the generic word "jumps" occurs in both,
      > > and
      > > there is only one instance of the word "jumps",
      > > which
      > > occurs in both.
      > >
      > > Does this help clear anything up.
      >
      > No. I find it rather curious that so many are running
      > to my aide to solve *my* confusion, which is false,
      > when the problem of confusion belongs to Mr. Gentile.
      > The fact that no one grasps the logic problem is
      > disturbing. The terms need to be clarified in his
      > propositions. That is all I was attempting to point
      > out all along. As they stand they lend themselves to
      > various interpretations which has become evident just
      > reading the posts. Besides this, your example does
      > not correspond with Dave's own example of "the brown
      > fox jumps". Compare your take on it to his.
      >
      > Best,
      >
      >
      > =====
      > John N. Lupia
      > 501 North Avenue B-1
      > Elizabeth, New Jersey 07208-1731 USA
      >
      > __________________________________________________
      > Do You Yahoo!?
      > Yahoo! Health - your guide to health and wellness
      > http://health.yahoo.com
      >
      > Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
      > List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@b...


      Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
      List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
    • John Lupia
      Correction. The following reads: 5 Words in B not used by A in any parallel B has with A. (* repetitive with #2).Words in B used not in a parallel narrative
      Message 36 of 36 , May 2, 2002
        Correction.

        The following reads:
        5 Words in B not used by A in any parallel B has with
        A.
        (* repetitive with #2).Words in B used not in a
        parallel narrative with A, but in a parallel phrase
        with A
        6. Words used in a unique phrase (or clause) or verse
        in B exclusively.
        (11) Words used in a unique phrase (or clause) in B
        exclusively.
        (12) Words used in a unique verse in B exclusively.


        But should be corrected as follows:
        (10) Words that are different between A & B having the
        same subject, but which are not parallel narratives.
        (11) Words in B not used by A in any parallel B has
        with A.
        (* repetitive with #2).Words in B used not in a
        parallel narrative with A, but in a parallel phrase
        with A
        6. Words used in a unique phrase (or clause) or verse
        in B exclusively.
        (12) Words used in a unique phrase (or clause) in B
        exclusively.
        (13) Words used in a unique verse in B exclusively.

        Additional note:

        Consequently, there are thirteen, not twelve
        categories.

        There are two classes of focus dictated by the design
        of the essentially required categories.

        Class 1 comprises a study of narrative parallels and
        non-parallels that show either possible redaction or
        author's style demonstrated in the following twelve
        categories:
        Categories 1, 2, (3), (4), (6), (7), (8), (9), (10),
        (11), (12), (13).

        Class 2 comprises a study of narrative parallels and
        non-parallels that show overlap between Synoptic
        Gospels sharing words and material to escalating
        degrees of verisimilitude demonstrated in the
        following five categories:
        Categories 2, (5), (6), (7), (9).

        Four categories: 2, (6), (7), (9) have dual functions
        since they share words and material that overlap as
        well as demonstrate either possible redaction or
        author's style. Each should be assessed separately.


        =====
        John N. Lupia
        501 North Avenue B-1
        Elizabeth, New Jersey 07208-1731 USA

        __________________________________________________
        Do You Yahoo!?
        Yahoo! Health - your guide to health and wellness
        http://health.yahoo.com

        Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
        List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.